Case Number(s): 08-O-10110, 08-O-10537, 08-O-13045
In the Matter of: Walter James Roberts, IV, Bar # 225339, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Hugh R. Radigan, Bar # 94251,
Counsel for Respondent: In Pro Per, Bar #
Submitted to: Settlement Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office Los Angeles.
<<not>> checked. PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED
Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g., "Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted June 3, 2003.
2. The parties agree to be bound by the factual stipulations contained herein even if conclusions of law or disposition are rejected or changed by the Supreme Court.
3. All investigations or proceedings listed by case number in the caption of this stipulation are entirely resolved by this stipulation and are deemed consolidated. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed under "Dismissals." The stipulation consists of 19 pages, not including the order.
4. A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included under "Facts."
5. Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions of Law".
6. The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading "Supporting Authority."
7. No more than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writing of any pending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.
8. Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7. (Check one option only):
<<not>> checked. Until costs are paid in full, Respondent will remain actually suspended from the practice of law unless relief is obtained per rule 5.130, Rules of Procedure.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following membership years: two billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court order. (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure.) If Respondent fails to pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court, the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.
<<not>> checked. Costs are waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
<<not>> checked. Costs are entirely waived.
State Bar Court case # 06-O-10128; Date prior discipline effective March ]5, 2007; Violation of Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 3-] 10(A), Business and Professions Code sections 6068(m) and 6068(k); degree of discipline two years probation, one year stayed suspension and a thirty day actual suspension.
IN THE MATTER OF: Walter J. Roberts, IV, State Bar No. 225339
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 08-O-10110, 08-O-10537 and 08-O-13045
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Case No. 08-O-10110:
1. On July 1, 2005, the California Supreme Court filed an order, S133040, in In re Walter James Roberts, IV, on Discipline, regarding State Bar Court case number 04-O-11044. In the order, the California Supreme Court suspended Respondent from the practice of law in California for 30 days, stayed execution of the suspension, and placed Respondent On probation for two years with conditions. Further, Respondent was ordered by the California Supreme Court to take and pass the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination ("MPRE") within one year after the effective date of the order. The effective date of the order was July 31, 2005. On or about July 1, 2005, the clerk of the California Supreme Court served Respondent with a copy of the order. Respondent received the order.
2. On October 6, 2006, Respondent filed a motion with the State Bar Court for an extension of time to take and pass the MPRE. On October 23, 2006, the State Bar Court granted Respondent’s motion and extended the time for Respondent to take and pass the MPRE until the results from the November 2006 MPRE were posted.
3. On January 4, 2007, Diedra Williams ("Williams") filed a petition for legal separation in the Los Angeles County Superior Court, entitled In the Matter of Diedra Denise Williams and Walker Williams, Jr., case number BD458328 (the "action").
4. On January 18, 2007, Williams amended the petition to a petition for dissolution.
5. On January 23, 2007, the State Bar Court Review Department issued an order, S133040, suspending Respondent from the practice of law in California, effective February 20, 2007, because Respondent had not passed the MPRE within the time prescribed by the California Supreme Court’s order filed July 1, 2005, and as extended by the State Bar Court on October 23, 2006. On January 23, 2007, a State Bar Court Case Administrator served Respondent with a copy of the order. Respondent received the order.
6. On February 1, 2007, Walker Williams, Jr. ("Mr. Williams") employed Respondent to represent him in the action.
7. On February 14, 2007, the California Supreme Court filed an order, S 148761, in In re Walter James Roberts, IV, on Discipline, regarding State Bar Court case number 06-0-10128. In the order, the California Supreme Court suspended Respondent from the practice of law in California for one year, stayed execution of the suspension, and placed Respondent on probation for two years with conditions, including the condition that he be actually suspended for 30 days. The effective date of the order was March 16, 2007. On February 14, 2007, the clerk of the California Supreme Court served Respondent with a copy of the order. Respondent received the order.
8. On March 5, 2007, and while suspended from the practice of law in California by the order, S133040, filed on January 23, 2007, Respondent mailed a letter to Williams on his law office letterhead as the attorney for Mr. Williams. In the letter, Respondent stated that he represented Mr. Williams in the action and proposed a settlement to resolve issues in the action. With the letter, Respondent enclosed a proposed marital settlement agreement drafted by Respondent.
9. On March 27 and 30, 2007, and while suspended from the practice of law in California by the orders, S133040 and S148761, filed on January 23, 2007 and February 14, 2007, respectively, Respondent mailed letters on his law office letterhead to Williams regarding the settlement agreement as the attorney for Mr. Williams.
10. On April 4, 2007, and while suspended from the practice of law in California by the orders filed on January 23, 2007 and February 14, 2007, Respondent had a telephone conference with Williams and Mr. Williams regarding the settlement agreement as the attorney for Mr. Williams.
11. On April 13, 2007, the State Bar Court Review Department issued another order, S 133040, terminating the suspension imposed on Respondent by its order filed January 23, 2007, effective April 13, 2007, as Respondent had passed the MPRE on March 10, 2007. At no time did Respondent disclose the material fact to Williams that he was not entitled to practice law in California on March 5, 27 and 30, 2007 and on April 4, 2007.
Legal Conclusion:
12. By performing the legal services for Mr. Williams on March 5, 27, and 30, 2007 and on April 4, 2007, as described in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10, above, Respondent willfully engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when he knew he was not entitled to do so in violation of Business and Professions Code sections 6125 and 6126, thereby violating section 6068(a). Respondent wilfully violated Business and Professions Code, section 6106, by committing an act involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption, by failing to disclose to his client his suspended status. Additionally, by performing the legal services for Mr. Williams on or about March 5, 2007 as described in paragraphs 8, above, Respondent wilfully disobeyed and violated a court order, S 133040, filed on January 23, 2007, requiring him to forbear an act connected with or in the course of Respondent’s profession which he ought in good faith to have forborne, in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6103. Comparably, by performing the legal services for Mr. Williams on or about March 27 and 30, 2007 and on or about April 4, 2007 as described in paragraphs 9 and 10, above, Respondent wilfully disobeyed and violated court orders, S133040 and S148761, filed on January 23, 2007 and February 14, 2007, respectively, requiring him to forbear an act connected with or in the course of Respondent’s profession which he ought in good faith to have forborne, in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6103.
Case No. 08-0-10573:
13. At all times herein mentioned, Respondent was the attorney of record for Lien Eun Oh ("Mr. Oh") in a matter filed on September 14, 2005, and pending in the Orange County Superior Court entitled, In re Marriage of Michelle Oh and Linn Eun Oh, case number 05D008592 (the "action").
14. On March 9, 2007, and while suspended from the practice of law in California by the order, S 133040, filed on January 23, 2007, Respondent provided legal representation to Mr. Oh during Mr. Oh’s deposition in the action. Attorney Jack Kayajanian ("Kayajanian") represented Michelle Oh during the deposition. At no time did Respondent disclose the material fact to Kayajanian that he was not entitled to practice law in California on March 9, 2007.
Legal Conclusion:
15. By performing the legal services for Mr. Oh on March 9, 2007, as described in paragraph 14, above, Respondent willfully engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of Business and Professions Code sections 6125 and 6126, thereby violating section 6068(a). By performing the legal services for Mr. Oh on March 9, 2007, as described in paragraph 14, above, without disclosing to Kayajanian that he was not entitled to practice law in California at that time, Respondent concealed a material fact from Kayajanian in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6106. By performing the legal services for Mr. Oh on March 9, 2007 as described in paragraph 14, above, Respondent wilfully disobeyed and violated court order S 133040, filed on January 23, 2007, requiring him to forbear an act connected with or in the course of Respondent’s profession which he ought in good faith to have forborne, in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6103.
Case No. 08-0-13045:
16. As a condition of probation imposed by order S148761, the California Supreme Court ordered Respondent to develop a law office management/organization plan ("LOMP"), which must be approved by Office of Probation of the State Bar of California ("Probation"), within 60 days of the effective date of the discipline, or by May 15, 2007; and to include in the LOMP procedures to (1) send periodic reports to clients; (2) document telephone messages received and sent; (3) maintain files; (4) meet deadlines; (5) withdraw as attorney, whether of record or not, when clients cannot be contacted or located; (6) train and supervise support personnel; and (7) address any subject area or deficiency that caused or contributed to Respondent’s misconduct in the current proceeding (the "LOMP condition").
17. As conditions of the probation ordered by the California Supreme Court by order $148761, Respondent was to do the following:
a. Submit written quarterly reports to Probation on each January 10, April 10, July 10 and October 10 during the period of probation, stating under penalty of perjury whether Respondent had complied with all the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all conditions of probation during the preceding calendar quarter; and,
b. Subject to a proper or good faith assertion of any applicable privilege, fully, promptly, and truthfully answer any inquiries of Probation directed to him, whether personally or in writing, relating to whether he is complying or has complied with the conditions of his probation.
18. Additionally, in August 2006, Respondent entered into a Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition with the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California ("State Bar") in State Bar Court case number 06-O-10128. In the stipulation, Respondent agreed to comply with the probation conditions, as described in paragraphs 16 and 17, above, in order to resolve the case.
19. On or about March 14, 2007, Probation mailed a letter to Respondent at his then current Membership Records address of 3325 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1350, Los Angeles, CA 90010-1709 (the "membership records address"), reminding Respondent of the probation conditions imposed by order S148761. In the letter, Probation also informed Respondent that his compliance with the LOMP condition was due by May 15, 2007. Respondent received the letter.
20. On or about March 29, 2007, Probation discussed all of the probation conditions required by the California Supreme Court in its order, S 148761, including the LOMP condition, with Respondent.
21. Respondent did not submit a LOMP for Probation’s approval by May 15, 2007.
22. On Or about July 23, 2007, Probation left a telephone message that his LOMP was due on May 15, 2007 and requested that Respondent contact Probation. Respondent did not contact Probation.
23. On August 15, 2007, Probation telephoned Respondent about the LOMP condition. Respondent told Probation that he thought he had sent his LOMP to Probation in May 2007. Respondent told Probation that he would check his records and call Probation back on August 16, 2007. Respondent did not contact Probation on August 16, 2007.
24. On or about October 10, 2007, Respondent filed a quarterly report with Probation. In the report, Respondent stated that he had submitted his LOMP to Probation on October 9, 2007. Probation did not receive Respondent’s LOMP.
25. On or about October 12, 2007, Probation left a telephone message that his LOMP was due on May 15, 2007 and that Probation had not received the LOMP that he stated was submitted to Probation on October 9, 2007.
26. On or about October 17, 2007, Probation received a LOMP from Respondent.
27. On or about October 17, 2007, Probation mailed a letter to Respondent at the membership records address. In the letter, Probation informed Respondent that his LOMP was rejected because he did not identify how Respondent structured his work to meet deadlines; did not set forth how Respondent supervised his personnel and how often he supervised his personnel; and did not satisfactorily address any subject area or deficiency that caused or contributed to Respondent’s misconduct. In the letter, Probation requested that Respondent submit an amended LOMP immediately as the LOMP was due on May 15, 2007. Respondent received the letter.
28. On or about November 1, 2007, Probation had a telephone conversation with Respondent and gave recommendations to him about how he was to amend his LOMP. Respondent informed Probation that he would submit his amended LOMP by November 5, 2007. Respondent did not submit his amended LOMP by November 5, 2007.
29. On November 15, 2007, Respondent sent an e-mail to Probation. In the e-mail, Respondent stated that he was having trouble completing the LOMP and requested a consultation to discuss the LOMP condition.
30. On November 19, 2007, Probation sent an e-mail to Respondent. In the e-mail, Probation asked Respondent to make the changes as outlined in Probation’s October 17, 2007 letter and as recommended by Probation on November 1, 2007.
31. On November 26, 2007, Respondent sent an e-mail to Probation. In the e-mail, Respondent stated that he would deliver the LOMP in the morning of November 27, 2007.
32. On or about November 28, 2007, Probation received Respondent’s amended LOMP.
33, On or about November 29; 2007, Probation mailed a letter to, Respondent at his then current Membership Records address of 12661 S. Hoover St., Los Angeles, CA 90044. In the letter, Probation informed Respondent that his amended LOMP was rejected because it did not identify who documented telephone messages sent and how such documentation occurred, and if such documentation was placed in the client’s file; and did not identify how Respondent structured his work to meet his deadlines. Respondent received the letter.
34. On December 4, 2007, Respondent sent an e-mail to Probation with his amended LOMP as attachment. In the e-mail, Respondent stated that he would deliver the original, signed amended LOMP to the State Bar on December 5, 2007.
35. On December 5, 2007, Probation approved Respondent’s unsigned, amended LOMP, and received his signed LOMP on December 6, 2007.
36. As conditions of the probation ordered by the California Supreme Court by orders S133040 and S148761, Respondent was to do the following:
a. During the period of probation, comply with the State Bar Act and the Rules of Professional Conduct; and,
b. Submit written quarterly reports to the State Bar of California’s Office of Probation ("Probation") on each January 10, April 10, July 10 and October 10 during the period of probation, stating under penalty of perjury whether Respondent had complied with all the State Bar Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct, and all conditions of probation during the preceding calendar quarter.
37. Additionally, in March 2005, Respondent entered into a Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition with the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel of the State Bar of California ("State Bar") in State Bar Court case number 04-0-11044. In the stipulation, Respondent agreed to comply with the probation conditions, as described in paragraph 36, above, in order to resolve the case.
38. Also, in August 2006, Respondent entered into a Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition with the State Bar in State Bar Court case number 06-0-10128. In the stipulation, Respondent agreed to comply with the probation conditions, as described in paragraph 36, above, in order to resolve the case.
39. On or about April 9, 2007, and pursuant to order S133040, Respondent filed his quarterly report due April 10, 2007, and covering the reporting period of January 1 to March 31, 2007, with Probation. In the report, Respondent represented under penalty of perjury to Probation that he had complied with all provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct.
40. On or about July 10, 2007, and pursuant to orders S133040 and S148761, Respondent filed his quarterly reports due July 10, 2007, and covering the reporting period of April 1 to June 30, 2007, with Probation. In the reports, Respondent represented under penalty of perjury to Probation that he had complied with all provisions of the State Bar Act and Rules of Professional Conduct.
41. Respondent’s representation to Probation in his quarterly report filed on or about April 9, 2007 was false in that Respondent had not complied with all provisions of the State Bar act by performing the legal services for Mr. Williams on or about March 5, 2007, as described in paragraph 8, above, and for Mr. Oh on March 9, 2007, as described in paragraph 14, above, when he was not entitled to practice law in California.
42. Respondent’s representations to Probation in his quarterly reports filed on or about July 10, 2007 were false in that Respondent had not complied with all provisions of the State Bar act by performing the legal services for Mr. Williams on or about March 27 and 30, 2007 and on or about April 4, 2007, as described in paragraphs 9 and 10, above, and for Mr. Oh on March 9, 2007, as described in paragraph 14, above, when he was not entitled to practice law in California.
43. Respondent’s representation in his quarterly report filed on or about October 10, 2007, that he had submitted his LOMP to Probation on October 9, 2007 was false as he had not submitted his LOMP to Probation. Respondent did not file his quarterly report with Probation for the period of October 1 through December 31, 2008 by January 10, 2009 (the "quarterly report"). Respondent filed the quarterly report with Probation on January 13, 2009.
44. As a condition of probation, the California Supreme Court ordered Respondent to report to the Membership Records Office of the State Bar ("Membership Records") and to Probation all changes of information, including current office address and telephone number, or other address for State Bar purposes, as prescribed by section 6002.1 of the Business and Professions Code ("section 6002.1"), within 10 days of any change of information.
45. On November 10, 2008, Respondent notified Probation of his change of information as prescribed by section 6002.1.
46. On December 31, 2008, Probation sent an e-mail to Respondent. In the e-mail, Probation reminded Respondent to report his change of information to Membership Records.
47. On February 3, 2009, Membership Records received Respondent’s change of information. Legal Conclusion:
48. By not developing an LOMP which was approved by Probation by May 15, 2007, Respondent wilfully failed to comply with all conditions attached to any disciplinary probation. Also, by not contacting Probation about his LOMP as requested on or about July 23, 2007, and by not contacting Probation on August 16, 2007 about his LOMP, Respondent did not fully and promptly answer any inquiry of Probation relating to whether he had complied with the conditions of his probation and wilfully failed to comply with all conditions attached to any disciplinary probation. By not submitting his amended LOMP to Probation by November 5 and 27, 2007 as represented, Respondent did not truthfully answer any inquiry of Probation relating to whether he had complied with the conditions of his probation and wilfully failed to comply with all conditions attached to any disciplinary probation, all in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(k). Additionally, by misrepresenting to Probation in his quarterly reports filed on or about April 9 and July 10, 2007 that he had complied with all provisions of the State Bar Act on or about March 5, 27, and 30, 2007 and on or about April 4, 2007, and by misrepresenting that he had submitted his LOMP to Probation on October 9, 2007, Respondent wilfully failed to comply with all conditions attached to any disciplinary probation, in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(k). By not timely filing the quarterly report on January 10, 2009, Respondent wilfully failed to comply with all conditions attached to any disciplinary probation, in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(k). By not notifying Membership Records of his change of information until .on or about February 3, 2009, Respondent wilfully failed to comply with all conditions attached to any disciplinary probation, in violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(k).
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to, on page 2, paragraph A(6), was November 13, 2009.
DISMISSALS.
The parties respectfully request the Court to dismiss the following alleged violations in the interest of justice:
Case No.: 08-O-10110 and 08-0-10573, Count: Four Alleged Violation: Moral turpitude-Misrepresentations to the State Bar, Business and Professions Code section 6106
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed respondent that as of November 13, 2009, the prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $ 3654.00. Respondent further acknowledges that should this stipulation be rejected or should relief from the stipulation be granted, the costs in this matter may increase due to the cost of further proceedings.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
Standard 1.3 of the Standards For Attorney Sanctions For Professional Misconduct provides that the primary purpose of discipline is the protection of the public, the courts and the legal profession; maintenance of high professional standards; and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession.
Standard 1.6(a) provides that where two or more acts of misconduct occur within a single proceeding, the more severe sanction is to be imposed.
Standard 2.3 provides for disbarment or actual suspension for those acts of moral turpitude depending upon the extent to which the victim of the act has been harmed and the magnitude of the act of misconduct.
Standard 2.6(a) provides for disbarment or suspension depending upon the gravity of the offense or harm for a violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(a) and 6068(k). This same standard is applicable with respect to Respondent’s repeated failure to obey a court order in violation of Business and Professions code section 6103.
A one year actual suspension together with a three year stayed suspension, in conjunction with the probationary conditions set forth herein, is consistent with the above referred Standards. The parties submit that given Respondent’s recognition of wrongdoing, together with his belated remorse and candor and cooperation throughout this matter, that the stipulated discipline and probationary conditions in this matter are sufficient to assure that Respondent will conform his future conduct to ethical standards and therefore, protect the public, courts and legal profession.
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL.
Because respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation, respondent may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School.
SIGNATURE OF THE PARTIES
Case Number(s): 08-O-10110, 08-O-10537 and 08-O-13045
In the Matter of: Walter J. Roberts, IV
By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement with each of the recitation and each of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition.
Signed by:
Respondent: Walter J. Roberts, IV
Date: November 24, 2009
Respondent’s Counsel:
Date:
Deputy Trial Counsel: Hugh G. Radigan
Date: November 24, 2009
Case Number(s): 08-O-10110, 08-O-10537 and 08-O-13045
In the Matter of: Walter J. Roberts, IV
Finding the stipulation to be fair to the parties and that it adequately protects the public, IT IS ORDERED that the requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any is GRANTED without prejudice, and:
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.
1) On page 1, delete the case number 08-0-10537 and its place insert 08-0 -10573.
2) On page 2, paragraph 1.(8), delete the words, "two billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court order" and in its place insert "2011 and 2012."
The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. (See rule 135 (b), Rules of Procedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after the file date. (See rule 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Richard A. Honn
Date: December 8, 2009
[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]
I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and
County of Los Angeles, on December 10, 2009, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING
in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:
checked. by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at Los Angeles, California, addressed as follows:
WALTER J. ROBERTS IV
LAW OFC WALTER J ROBERTS IV
1625 W OLYMPIC BLVD STE 1045
LOS ANGELES, CA 90015
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Hugh Gerald Radigan, Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in Los Angeles, California, on December 10, 2009..
Signed by:
Johnnie Lee Smith
Case Administrator
State Bar Court